3 ms·
Putting this behind a subscription is crazy.
by dankwizard 2y ago
Putting this behind a subscription is crazy.
- bravoetch 2y agoThe outcome of venture funded business models. Before this, we solved a problem for customers and collected a markup or fee. And now the problem we solve is 'when can VC get their money?'. There's no incentive to solve problems for anyone except VC, and you have to convince the customer to give up money, or attention (for growth!). Until this changes, we end up with 'what's for dinner' apps that do almost nothing while wanting an annual subscription fee. Funny to see people posting 'but servers cost money'. That problem is created by the app.
- bentt 2y agoLocal grocers could just pay for advertising or placement space in such an app.
- hanniabu 2y agoThey'd just end up doing both
- cageface 2y agoThis is the unfortunate reality of the app business today. Without constant ad spend it's very very difficult to acquire new users. And constant ad spend is of course not possible with a low one-time payment for the app.
- simoncion 2y ago> Without constant ad spend it's very very difficult to acquire new users. If you're not VC funded, who gives a fuck how many users you have or how quickly you get more? Unless the cost of whatever backing online resources you need doesn't scale fairly closely with the number of users you have, the only thing number of users matters for is the size of the check you get at the end of the year, rather than the profit percentage from that check.
- asutekku 2y agoIf you want to make a living with apps, you kind of have to advertise.
- dankwizard 2y agoIf you're creating an app to help, then you don't get about acquiring new users. Who would care? If you're creating an app to make money, then don't put all your eggs in a Tinder-for-dinner basket.
- cageface 2y agoThe subject of this particular app isn't the point. It's the economics of the app business in general.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]